hkbajwa your friend seems to think that your reply to the post I sent him was *well said* and I guess he would have to appreciate anything that saved him from having to make another lame answer for himself. But all I see is that you forgot to address my point.

That would only be true if it was a case of one life vs. another life. Which it is when abortion is done for medical reasons.
But abortion on demand is a case of the life of one vs. the preference of another.
And as far as citizenship, that's the weakest argument I've heard yet. Does that mean you think we should be able to kill illegal immigrants since they are *non citizens*?

Stealing is considered immoral by some people and not by others. So if what you say is true, where did anyone get the right to make a law against it?

Ridiculous. If anybody gets abused it is those who are standiing up for the voiceless.
Why don't you point out an example of where I or any other prolife person accused any of you of harboring evil intents toward the fetus.

If that is what you want so much, I continue to wonder why you are not trying to turn around the many laws in this country which interfere with *individual rights of choice* when it comes to stealing, murder of born persons, and every other issue on which people have various differing moralities.
Rights of choice end where the next individual begins. In the case of abortion, that individual begins real close.

I'm waiting for you to show me ONE instance where I *bashed morality*. You won't find it. So if you're tired of anything, maybe it's your conscience getting to you.

Not saying it is right to kill non-citizens. What i am defining however is the government's responsibility. As far as i understand the government's responsibility is for the welfare of it's citizens no? ANy interference with non-citizens in the US is done for the protection of the citizens yes? Same difference should be applied to feti too. The government is responsible for the welfare of it's living citizen. Not trying to interfere with the relationship of a citizen with a non-citizen. Can you be tried in america for a murder you committed outside the country ( i don't know about that but i'm curious)?

Again, morality is not the basis for legislation against stealing and murder of living citizens. The basis is that a smooth system of interaction has to be maintained. It's systemic legislation, not moral.
Dear friend, while you may not have abused pro-choice suporters personally i think it is evident that pro-lifers spend a lot more time talking about the immorality of pro-choicers. The morality card is always thrown by the pro-lifers. And it's all about how evil it is to take away the right to life of feti. I am not saying your moral outrage is unjustified. I AM however saying that it is not a basis for argument, nor is it a reason to paint pro-choicers as cold inhuman beings.
Again morality is not the basis of legislation against such acts. Stealing i snot illegal because it's "bad" or "evil" . It is so because it disrupts the system of interaction between individual members of society. That is why the laws must be there. A child in the womb is not a member of society and that is exactly why the government can not legislate for it.
Well i'm happy to see that you are right. You have not bashed morality in our heads at all. But maybe that is also why you have little or no argument against choice.

Choice does not mean definate abortion. It means that the supreme authority in the life/death scenario is the mother and not a legislative bench filled with outsiders. It's a matter of WHO makes the choice. Not what the choice IS. A legislative bench can make the wrong choice too. So when fallibility is built into the system, isn't it more fair to let the choice go to the person who knows more about the situation than anybody else?

You won't get a rise out me pro-lifer. Fortunately, my "lame" answers can afford to be what they are because morality will never be legislated in this case.

For the record I said that to illustrate how something can be "human" but not a person. Anyways, you are right this whole conversation is worthless. It is what they call mental masturbation. It doesn't accomplish anything but it feels good.

As for me, I have stated my reasons for being pro choice and no further debate will be productive, so I thank Liwden and friendindeed for providing spirited opposition and for sharing their opinions with me.

I wasn't trying to knock on anybody specifically for bringing the toenails thing up...I was just saying that when these abortion debates rage on that is the kind of nonsense you get to, when really people are arguing about nothing. Emphasize nothing.

Cheers. It really becomes just a game of definition and overly specific arguments.

Not a real compelling argument now that more than half the country want restrictions. But obviously the only argument you have so just hang on to it for dear life and we shall see.

Depends on who you talk to. For some of us, the government's responsibility is to mend roads, protect the country from invasions, and a few other little things, as little as possible. To others, the government is responsible not only to its citizens but for almost anything that happens anywhere on the whole globe.

That's a very problematic question right at this time in view of the immigrant crisis. I would say *for the protection of CERTAIN of the citizens* (snicker)

Feti are living human beings. They may not be citizens, but human rights apply to all human beings, not just citizens.

Incorrect. These laws are based on English Common Law, which in turn was based on the Magna Carta, which in turn had its origins in religious/moral law.

Blanket generalizations which do not apply to any prolifers I've seen here. I have not once used the word "evil" or "the morality card" whatever that is supposed to mean.

Care to show me even one instance where I have used religion or morality as the basis of my arguments.
You can't of course because I have not. I have used human rights straight up and nothing else.
But as usual, abortion advocates who cannot address what is actually said, must resort to accusations that a prolifer has used religion or morality in his arguments. Happens every time.

That is revisionist history, I'm afraid. As I've said earlier, your information is inaccurate about that (English Common Law, Magna Carta, etc.)

False. A child in the womb is indeed a member of society and the government HAS legislated for it in the past and will again.

Seeing that you have not even begun to deal with what my actual argument was, I can only conclude that you either did not read or did not understand it. No skin off my nose.

It very much matters what the choice is.
All you have to do to see how fallacious your reasoning is, is just apply it to the issue of rape, murder, theft, perjury, or any other crime.
You don't want the "legislative bench" to be the one to say. But I notice you don't have a problem with the "judicial bench" making the decision.
This country's documents state that it is to be governed BY the people, not by five old men in black robes. They have completely superceded the functions delineated for them in the founding documents. The issue of abortion has already begun to be revisited and there is nothing you can do about it.
The US is one of the three countries with the most liberal abortion policies in the world (Roe in principle allows abortion anytime, for any reason). The majority of people do not agree with that and would vote differently if given their rightful opportunity to do so. Things will change.

Sweet . How about asking for a referendum? I don't think it's that complicated. Let the people decide.